GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.

You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!

Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.

Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.

Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide

This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.

Why can't a distribution of Linux be made to operate under the same princibles as Windows. Why does Linux HAVE to be so different?

Many people would like to see an operating system that resembles Windows and this would drive down the cost. Is Microsoft paying the developers of Linux to make it very UNLIKE Windows, in order for Microsoft to continue to dominate the software market?

Why is it so hard to develop a better operating system than Windows, while still operating along the same lines: Ease of use and compatable with existing software.

Is it against the law to make another operating system that can read .exe files like Windows does?

Originally posted by aweir14150 Why can't a distribution of Linux be made to operate under the same princibles as Windows. Why does Linux HAVE to be so different?

What principles do you mean, exactly? It's many of the design principles of Windows that are considered to be problematic by those in the open-source and free software communities that develop Linux; in the free software world, the strongest motivating factors are freedom and choice, while in the proprietary world the motivating factors tend to be control and other restrictions. Linux is much younger than Windows (though it draws on some work that is much more mature than Windows), so it does have some catching up to do as far usability goes, but it's a hard question how to reconcile the need for some kind of standardization with the desire for variety and choice among Linux users.

Quote:

Is Microsoft paying the developers of Linux to make it very UNLIKE Windows, in order for Microsoft to continue to dominate the software market?

I seriously doubt it, given the general state of panic that Microsoft seems to have about Linux and free/open source software in general. Also, it'd be sort of tricky to keep several hundred thousand pseudo-anonymous volunteers on a payroll...

Quote:

Why is it so hard to develop a better operating system than Windows, while still operating along the same lines: Ease of use and compatable with existing software.

Developing software is not easy Please feel free to contribute to your favorite software project to help make it better.

Quote:

Is it against the law to make another operating system that can read .exe files like Windows does?

Not that I know of, though why would you want to make another operating system that works in the same way as Windows? Linux is more robust, and handles memory and CPU more effectively, in part because it doesn't use the same executable format as Windows does. If you need to run Windows .exes in Linux, you can use Wine, VMWare, Bochs or similar software.

Maybe it's apparent to a lot of the Linux developers that Microsoft, as Steve Jobs has said, has really bad taste, and thus wouldn't make anything that resembles the product into which such a terrible sense of taste and lack of flair went.

I don't understand why so many people want Linux to be just like Windows. All politics aside, if Windows was that good, I'd be using it right now instead of Linux, but it's not. And then there's the fact that it'd be supporting an evil empire---which never makes me feel good about myself.

Keep in mind these PC's and Wal-Mart with Lindows are useless. Consumer reports did tests on them and they are crap. I believe the Lindows adds a bad name to the name of linux. People will try these and throw them out and think ALL linux is like Lindows, crap.

"Why can't a distribution of Linux be made to operate under the same princibles as Windows. Why does Linux HAVE to be so different?"
Just because Linux is NOT Windows... the paradigm is totally different...

"Many people would like to see an operating system that resembles Windows and this would drive down the cost. Is Microsoft paying the developers of Linux to make it very UNLIKE Windows, in order for Microsoft to continue to dominate the software market?"
I think if they wanted linux to go down they should pay someone to develop something windows like with all its flaws like Outlook Express.... because linux is so different I don't need an anitvirus, just a umask that does not give all permissions to s***t and to use a non-root account for trivial stuff

Why is it so hard to develop a better operating system than Windows, while still operating along the same lines: Ease of use and compatable with existing software.
When someone has to break a paradigm is always hard. The essence of linux being better then windows is its differences... to be like windows ressembles staying as we are. Windows is unknown even to its creators. Many interviews are given saying that not even them inside microsoft knows the causes for some failures and some they know they can't correct because it would break compatibility with other software.
Freedom and Choice ressembles that not even can be done by wizards. It's too much work for a programmer to create a program that let you choose between a combination of 10 choices per 10 choices... 100 hundred possibilities of choice is way to much for a wizard. Think about now how many configuration options you have on XFree86Config. Talking about my cell phone. I got a Siemens C55 there's already some time ago. To use it as a modem on windows I need to use a software given by siemens. On linux I plugged it on my serial port, sent a initialization string and a dial up number and it got connected and could navigate through pages using the cell phone. There's hundreds of millions of ways to get connected to the internet. You just need to pick your choice. That's the point.

One might ask why you would require everyone else to use what you prefer.

A Linux distribution has a lot of choices it can make for the direction it wishes to go.
Linux is not Windows. They are two different operating systems. They can be pasted over with similar wallpaper, but they are still two different operating system.
It is apparently a common error for people to hear that Linux is free, secure, and reliable so they figure if they get Linux they will have Windows that is free,secure, and reliable.
Nope. When you install Linux, you get Linux. When you install Windows, you get Windows.

I have forgotten about Lindows...because I havn't heard much about it. Is existing software compatable with Lindows.

I guess the question I should have stated more clearly is: is it possible to make a Linux Distro that is compatable with existing software. Wine is hard to use, but wouldn't Linux be MORE productive if it was compatable with today's software selections?

You seem to be using the term "existing software" to mean software that runs on Windows?
There is easy to use software (that is not free) that allows specific versions of Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, various Windows media players and etc. to run on Linux.http://www.codeweavers.com/
I have used the Crossover Plugin. It worked great.
You are right that it is frustrating that there is lots of niche and speciality software that is not made to run on Linux.
On the other hand there is lots of great Linux software.
What specific "existing software" programs do you mean?

Do you know how bloody hard it is to do something like that?? It isnt the difficulty at making a disto, its the difficulty of MAKING A REPLICA of windows which is CLOSED source. What you want in windows, but free, and thats NOT going to happen. There is SO much more to making an OS than just plunking in compatability for .exe files. Its not like the Linux creators were like "Yeah, lets not include .exe compatability just to irritate users", no they COULDN'T because Linux is not Windows and cant be used as such.

And then there is the fact that .exe files are designed for windows not linux, Linux has a different structure completly.

Lindows is NOT compatable with .exe files (I am pretty damn sure), it is simply a user friendly, bad disto. Besides this, what do you need .exe files for? There are so many GPL things with are used with .tar.gz's and have virtually every thing from windows for linux.

If someone were to go and make a disto which took .exe files, what would that make it? Windows! Linux is NOT windows and can and never will be windows. If you don't like it, don't use it. Im quite sick of hearing people bitch about it not being the same, OF COURSE ITS NOT, it was not intended to be.

To sum it up, there is never going to be a linux version which is the same as windows, ever. This is an almost impossible task to do, so don't bitch about it, if you don't like linux don't use it. Simple as that.